ed note–So, an Argentine Jew
is said to have paid off someone to bomb the AMIA Jewish Center in
Buenos Aires in 1994 for which Iran was blamed. Argentina and Iran then
sign a memorandum of understanding to open the case and investigate it
and Jewish groups the world over are pissing their pants in the process?

The
Federal Appeals Court in the Argentinean capital, Buenos Aires, last
week ordered the investigation of Carlos Vladimir Corach for allegedly
giving an illegal payment of 400,000 dollars to Carlos Telleldin, an
auto mechanic who was among those charged in the 1994 booming."
An
Argentinean court has ordered the probe of the country's Jewish
ex-interior minister for his alleged ties to the AMIA Jewish center
bombing which left 85 people dead and hundreds wounded.

The Jerusalem Post reported on Monday that the Federal Appeals Court
in the Argentinean capital, Buenos Aires, last week ordered the
investigation of Carlos Vladimir Corach for allegedly giving an illegal
payment of 400,000 dollars to Carlos Telleldin, an auto mechanic who was
among those charged in the 1994 bombing.

According to the report, Telleldin, who is accused of providing the
car bomb that blew up the Jewish center, has not been indicted.

The three Appeals Court justices urged Federal Judge Ariel Lijo to
probe “the existence of concrete allegations involving Carlos Vladimir
Corach, which have not been investigated until now,” the report added.

Corach was interior minister during the government of former Argentinean President Carlos Menem in the 1990s.

YH/SS/SL

TUT Broadcast April 9, 2013The recent screeching of organized
Jewish interests against Argentina’s decision with Iran to investigate
the bombing of AMIA Jewish community center in 1994–what are they afraid
of, and is this a case of the guilty showing their hand?Download HereTHANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM

Buenos Aires Jewish community marks embassy bombinged
note–the investigations into the bombings in Argentina–first in 1992
and then another in 1994–were notoriously mired in corruption and
incompetence, so much so that the original government investigator was
impeached because of it.

At the time, Argentina and
Iran were negotiating–surprise, surprise–a nuclear deal and Israel was
having her typical hissy fit over it. Then the bombing (s) take place
and Israel and the US put pressure on Argentina to implicate Iran.

Now however, Iran and
Argentina have decided to reopen the case and examine it anew. The
president of Argentina, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, has accused the
local Jewish capo of being affiliated with Israel’s intelligence
service Mossad and of making veiled threats of additional acts of
terrorism against that country.

There is only ONE player who
benefited from these bombings, and it was ISRAEL, who is understandably
nervous right now about the upcoming investigation, for obvious fear
that it will be revealed that indeed it was MOSSAD who pulled these
bombings off and not Iran. MG

ed note–most would view this
as a diversionary statement from Israel done in the interests of making
it appear that the Israeli narrative concerning ‘Iran and Hezbollah’
being responsible for the bombing of the AMIA center in Buenos Airies is
more believable.

The fact is though that there
may be some truth to this, as it is standard Mafia.Mossad practice to
kill the perpetrators of crimes such as these in order to leave a cold
evidence trail. As former Mossad Victor Ostrovsky wrote in his book The
Other Side of Deception in speaking about Israel’s planned
assassination of Pres. George H.W. Bush at the Madrid Peace Talks in
1992:

"Since the Mossad had all
the security arrangements in hand, it would not be a problem bringing
the killers as close as they wanted to President Bush and then staging
his assassination. In the ensuing confusion, the Mossad people would kill the ‘perpetrators,’
scoring yet another victory for the Mossad. With the assassins dead, it
would be difficult to discover where the ‘security breach’ had been,
except that several countries involved in the conference, such as Syria,
were regarded as countries that assisted terrorists."

A Match To Remember
For many Jews, today’s World Cup match between Argentina and Iran is
far more than a soccer game — it’s a chance to remind the world of the
deadly 1994 AMIA terror bombing.

Réactions juives: "complot!" "Pas un suicide!" "Le gouvernement, complice de l'Iran, l'a suicidé"Alberto Nisman committed suicide? Let’s kill that lie Op-ed: Let nobody
be fooled into thinking that the prosecutor who was about to testify
against Argentina’s president chose to end his own life. And let nobody
buy the second big lie now being spread: That the AMIA case has not been
solved. It has. Iran was to blame Read more: Alberto Nisman committed
suicide? Let's kill that lie

Jewish leaders have hope in election of new Pope
ADL "reassured" by nomination of Pope Francis I, citing Jewish connections; WJC: Bergoglio to strengthen Israel-Vatican ties. (...) The ADL also cited his "dedication and support in standing up against extremism" in the new Pope's response to the 1994 bombing on an Argentinian Jewish center. (...) "Pope Francis I is no stranger to us. In recent years he attended many
inter-faith events co-organized by the WJC and our regional affiliate,
the Latin American Jewish Congress," he wrote, adding he had met him in
Buenos Aires in 2008.

In
this Dec. 12, 2012 picture provided by the NCI-Emanue El, Archbishop of
Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, right, lights the Janukia
during Hanukkah celebrations in Buenos Aires, Argentina, At left is
Rabbi Sergio Bergman, and at right is Rabbi Alejandro Avruj, of the
NCI-Emanu El congregation. The Jewish community in Argentina, the
largest in Latin America, is thrilled with the new pope Francis, known
for his excellent relationship with the Jewish community. Experts
believe that Bergoglio, who took the name Francis as pope, will be an
example of inter-religious relations. (AP Photo/NCI-Emanu El)

Photo:On
Monday, November 12, 2012, the Cathedral of Buenos Aires hosted
hundreds of people who attended the B'nai B'rith Argentina commemoration
of Kristallnacht. Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, lead the
event, which was attended by high representatives of the Methodist,
Lutheran, Presbyterian and Catholic Churches._B’nai B’rith
International welcomes Pope Francis, who was elected at the Vatican on
March 13 by the 115 Catholic cardinals eligible to vote.The new
pope, the former Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is the first
pope from Latin America. He will lead a Catholic church with 1.2
billion followers.

In November, then-Cardinal Bergoglio was the
keynote speaker at B’nai B’rith’s Kristallnacht commemoration in Buenos
Aires, where he helped light a candle in commemoration of the six
million Jews who died in the Holocaust.

“We welcome Pope
Francis to his new role as leader of the Catholic Church,” B’nai B’rith
International President Allan J. Jacobs said. “Catholic-Jewish relations
had remained a focus of Pope Benedict XVI and we look forward to
continuing the solid foundation that already exists for interfaith
dialogue.”

Pope Benedict resigned last month. Pope Francis is the 266th pope.

“We have been encouraged by the historic progress in Catholic-Jewish
relations,” said B’nai B’rith Executive Vice President Daniel S.
Mariaschin. “Interfaith dialogue, stressing tolerance and mutual
respect, is increasingly important in today’s world.”

Pope Francis Makes Good First Impression on JewsThe new pontiff “is no stranger to us,” World Jewish Congress President
Ronald Lauder, who met with Bergoglio in Buenos Aires in 2008, said in a
statement. “He always had an open ear for our concerns.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio of
Argentina hailed as close friend of Jewish community in Buenos Aires.
‘He is a man of dialogue, a man who is able to build bridges with other
faiths,’ says WJC President Ron Lauder, who is convinced new pontiff
will speak out against all forms of anti-Semitism

The Piper Report March 12, 2012 RBNPosted by Michael Collins Piper in Uncategorized on March 12, 2012 Ron Paul supporters do not necessarily support the Tea Party movement; nor any other particular parties and organizations. Mike also explores nefarious bank scam connections held by Christopher Bollyn. Reports from a delegate meeting in Nevada show Ron Paul leading the count for representatives in the electoral college.

Although
the controlled media contrived to mislead Americans into perceiving
Chavez as “anti-American,” the truth is that the bombastic South
American icon was actually a forthright nationalist critic of the
internationalist and imperialist forces often referred to as the New
World Order.

Like
many who oppose the privately-owned Federal Reserve money monopoly
which operates un-Constitutionally on American soil, Chavez was a critic
of rampant global super-capitalism, which Chavez called “the demon.”

There
is no question Chavez knew the source of his high-powered opposition.
In 2000, announcing a trip to Iraq, Chavez taunted his critics,
remarking: “Imagine what the Pharisees will say when they see me with
Saddam Hussein.” On another occasion he asserted: “The world has wealth
for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that
crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world.”

All of this is something of which even otherwise well-informed American patriots are unaware.

Should
there be any doubt Chavez was perceived as a roadblock in the way of
the New World Order, consider the warnings issued by David Rothkopf,
front man at Kissinger Associates, the secretive pressure group of Henry
Kissinger, one of the foremost advocates of the New World Order.

In
Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making—which
acknowledges the influence of such New World Order institutions as
Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign
Relations—Rothkopf spoke approvingly of what he called the new global
“superclass” (that is, the New World Order elite) and said that, in his
words, the “political fault line” for the 21st century is the battle of
“Globalists vs. Nationalists,” that an emerging “global network of
antiglobalists” stood opposed to the “superclass.” He wrote:

At the core of the “anti-network”
is a small group of leaders, linked by many shared characteristics and
attitudes though they come from widely different regions of the world.
They might be characterized as “nationalists,” or opponents of the
United States, or critics of Western-led globalization. . . .

In their view, globalization is
old Western imperialism dressed up in new clothes, and they are reacting
to it much as they were trained to react to such incursions. . . .
Whether you characterize it as nationalist vs. internationalist,
populist vs. globalist, or anti-neo-imperialist vs. pro-American
globalization, the fact is that the battle lines are drawn.

Specifically naming three figures
among that “small group of leaders” challenging the New World Order asIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Russian leader Vladimir Putin and
Chavez, Rothkopf candidly confirmed the primary underlying conflict in
our world today is—as it has always been—the fight by nationalists
worldwide to preserve their nations’ sovereignty in the face of the
concerted drive by cosmopolitan internationalists to erect a global
imperium. Rothkopf’s admissions were a clear sign the New World Order
schemers recognized serious forces were aligning against them.

Unfortunately, groups such as the
John Birch Society parroted the New World Order crowd and the
war-mongering pro-Israel neo-conservatives by attacking nationalists
such as Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Chavez.

Considering all of this—quite
naturally—from the time Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in
1999, the tightly-knit interlocking network of Rothschild dynasty-linked
plutocratic families and Federal Reserve-connected financial interests
who dominate the American military-industrial-media complex never spared
any fervor in denouncing Chavez at any opportunity.

That international Zionism and
the interwoven forces of the New World Order were disturbed about Chavez
was (at first) largely kept under wraps. Zionist hatred of Chavez was
confined to small-circulation—but nonetheless influential—journals read
almost exclusively by supporters of Israel and in elitist circles.

For propaganda purposes designed
to manipulate more broad-ranging concerns of freedom-loving Americans,
the media regularly stoked up the theme Chavez was a “socialist” or a
“communist” under the thumb of Fidel Castro.

That Chavez was friendly toward
Castro as virtually all Latin American leaders—even “conservatives”—have
been (not to mention leaders worldwide)—was hardly “proof” Chavez was a
communist.

Even The New York Review of Books
admitted on Oct. 6, 2005 that “a great many businessmen have prospered
under [Chavez’s] rule, and he has made it clear he sees a significant
role for the private sector and, most particularly, for foreign
investment.” So Chavez was no “communist”—media lies notwithstanding.

In truth, Chavez modeled himself
after Simon Bolivar—liberator of the Andean colonies from the Spanish
crown—who, in even traditional American history texts, was called “the
George Washington of South America.”

The
simmering secret war against Chavez took a new turn when, on the August
22, 2005 broadcast of his 700 Club, pro-Israel television evangelist
Pat Robertson—suggesting Chavez was a new communist threat—openly called
for the United States to assassinate Chavez, then emerging as a
forceful critic of the global warmongering of the George W. Bush
administration.

Most
Americans would have never heard of Robertson’s provocation had it not
been for the big media loudly publicizing the evangelist’s remarks and,
as such, Chavez and his supporters correctly saw Robertson’s outburst as
part of a carefully-crafted high-level scheme to direct American
popular ire against Chavez and set the stage for military action against
him.

In
fact, the call for killing Chavez came just days after the Bush
administration’s foremost voice of support in the media—the
neo-conservative Weekly Standard—slammed Chavez claiming he was “a
threat to more than just his own people,” a danger to the tiny but
wealthy Jewish population in Venezuela, bemoaning the fact Venezuelan
state television speculated Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad,
may have been linked to the assassination of a local official in
Venezuela.

Asserting
“hostility to Jews” was “one of the hallmarks of the Venezuelan
government,” the Standard cited a State Department “Report on Global
Anti-Semitism” that purported to document, in the Standard’s words, “how
openly anti-Semitic the Venezeulan government now is.”

Of
particular concern was that one of Chavez’s closest advisors, the late
Norberto Ceresole, was “infamous” for “conspiracy theories about Jewish
plans to control the planet” and that Ceresole was a “holocaust
denier”—that is, he questioned official accounts of World War II
history, a “crime” punishable by imprisonment in many Western nations
calling themselves “democracies,” and which, at the same time,
hypocritically accused Chavez of suppressing freedom of expression in
Venezeula.

Within
a short time, though, Jewish opposition to Chavez went public in a big
way. On Feb. 5, 2008—in a commentary in The Washington Post (a newspaper
that most definitely directs opinion among movers and shakers in the
nation’s capital)—Abe Foxman, chief of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
of B’nai B’rith, launched a full-force attack on Chavez. Headlined
“Chavez’s Anti-Semitism,” Foxman’s inflammatory broadside alleged a
“rising wave of anti-Semitism” in Venezuela traceable to Chavez.

Foxman
charged Venezuelan officials and media were “rehashing the ancient
canard about Jewish control, vilifying Jews and Israel as agents of
imperialism, and adopting anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish
financial influence,” and expressed concern Chavez was friendly to
Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Syrian President al-Assad, among others the ADL
called “a verifiable threat to Israel and world Jewry.”

Although
Chavez is gone, other leaders in South America and worldwide—with the
support of many good Americans—still carry on his fight against the New
World Order.

Perilous times lie ahead for Venezuela’s Jewish community, beset by the ghost of dictator Hugo Chavez, who died March 5

Photo by: CARLOS GARCIA RAWLINS

Once one of the proudest and most vibrant communities in the Americas, until
1999, when Hugo Chavez, El Comandante, (as he was and is still termed by his
followers) became president, more than half of the country’s 20,000 Jews have
since emigrated, mostly to Florida, Mexico, Spain and Israel.

But the
exodus from Chavez was not only Jewish. Hope, freedom and jobs all disappeared
as the economy was systematically destroyed – unemployment is now almost 10
percent and inflation is a resounding 25 percent (the average in Latin America
is less than 5 percent).

The private sector has been crippled by sudden
and arbitrary expropriations.

Venezuela boasted some 14,000 private
companies when Chavez came to power; only half of them survived him. One of the
wealthiest nations on earth, Venezuela used to export a wide variety of
products, but today less than 4 percent of exported goods are non-oil products.
El Comandante’s blustering almost-daily appearances on radio and TV couldn’t
change this grim reality. And, on top of everything, Jews had to endure his
unabashed and unpredictable hatred.

Judeophobia or anti-Semitism is a
European export product that never thrived in the Americas – with the possible
exception of Argentina, where anti-Jewish sentiment surfaced in a novel
published after the 1889 stock exchange collapse, and where Nazi-type groups
have been active at times.

Until 15 years ago, an article on Judeophobia
in Latin America would have focused on Argentina, without mentioning Venezuela,
which was almost free of Judeophobic myths at the time. But then Chavez came
onto the scene. What started as sporadic slurs, which fitted in with Chavez’s
radical anti-US rhetoric, slowly but surely became government policy. And when
police raided the country’s main Jewish school in November 2004, it became clear
that Chavez’s Judeophobic outbursts were not incidental. Pynchas Brener, the
community’s chief rabbi, called it “the first-ever direct aggression against the
community.”

The pretext for the assault was the search for evidence
connected to the murder of a prosecutor. Allegedly, weapons were being smuggled
into the school building from a nearby shooting range. By means of this
fabrication, the government created a smokescreen of paranoia to hide the
cesspool into which the country was sinking.

No weapons were found at the
school, and the raid only stupefied hundreds of pupils and their teachers. But
the venomous stories about the eternal conspirators had started to feed the
imagination of the Venezuelan people. In his Christmas message for 2005, Chavez
lamented that “the descendants of the people who crucified Christ have taken
over the planet’s resources.” The national television channel echoed this
libretto when an entire program in January 2006, was devoted to an attack
against the Jews as “owners of the media.” Chavez encouraged such programs and
never had to account for this, as he didn’t have any official contact with the
Jewish community. He labelled his non- Jewish opponents “wandering
Jews.”

The Judeophobic threat in Latin America has indeed shifted to
Venezuela, and its mask is now less nationalism or Catholicism, and more
Islamism and socialism. When Chavez was awarded the Gaddafi International Prize
for Human Rights in Tripoli in 2004, he promptly dedicated it to Palestinan
leader Yasser Arafat. Chavez’s hatred of Jews can be traced to his advisor since
1994, Norberto Ceresole, a neo-Nazi, who died in 2004. Described as “an
authentic revolutionary against the Yankee-Zionist World Order,” Ceresole
trained at the Soviet Union’s School for War. Upon his return to his native
Argentina, he zigzagged between the extreme left (the ERP guerrilla movement)
and the extreme right (a group of officers led by Colonel Aldo Rico who plotted
a fascist coup). Ceresole blended both extremes in his books, “The Caudillo, The
Army and The People: The Venezuelan Model or Postdemocracy” (1999), in which he
advises the people to delegate all power to a national-military leader; and
“National Judaism: Post-Zionist Messianism” (1997), the prologue of which was
penned by his mentor, Roger Garaudy. Both were Holocaust deniers, and Ceresole
took this a step further by claiming that the 1994 terror attack against the
AMIA in Buenos Aires had not taken place.

In fact Jewish and Israeli
targets were brutally attacked in Argentina in 1992 and 1994, precisely by
Chavez’s staunch ally, Iran. More than 100 people were killed in Buenos Aires,
and hundreds more were injured. It is thanks to Chavez that Iran is not
ostracized by Latin America (not even by Argentina, which has just signed an
agreement with the ayatollahs).

He threw open the doors of the continent
to Hezbollah, Iran’s lackey. A tribe of Venezuelan Indians has since converted
to Islamism and runs a website promoting its ideology.

Chavez’s revered
mentor, Fidel Castro, set a precedent in 1979, when he was the first to support
the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Cuba and Iran later joined forces at the UN in a
bid to expel Israel. Venezuela broke off relations with the Jewish state in
2009, and Chavez went as far as to curse Israel on TV. He saw himself as a world
leader who was set to vanquish the United States and the West, with the help of
Islam.

Chavez’s legacy is the deep Iranian penetration in Latin America
and support for Bashar Assad’s massacres in Syria.

Venezuela is Iran’s
international advocate.

Chavez’s disciple, Bolivian President Evo
Morales, has declared his country an “unconditional ally” of Iran. A clandestine
Iranian network, similar to the one that preceded the attacks against Argentina,
is currently growing throughout the length and breadth of the
continent.

Violence can be expected in Venezuela in the coming months,
for two main reasons: First, the country has one of the highest inflation rates
in the world.

The economy is close to bankruptcy and collapse is being
held off by the high price of oil. If it drops, Venezuelans will be further
impoverished and turmoil will break out.

Second, Venezuela has already
become one of the most violent countries on the planet. The murder rate doubled
during Chavez’s reign, mainly due to corruption and the breakdown of law and
order. The biggest robberies were carried out by Chavez’s supporters. Two of his
brothers have acquired at least 17 ranches at knockdown prices, using concealed
names. And his political allies, who have amassed fortunes from confiscated
lands and enterprises, won’t allow the rule of law to replace Chavez’s legacy.
Drug-dealing generals like Henry Silva Rangel, who was minister of defence, have
clearly stated that the army will not allow the “Socialist revolution” to
end.

If Henrique Capriles, who is of Jewish ancestry, wins the Venezuelan
elections, set for April 14, the phantom of Judeophobia will be a tool in the
hands of rebellious chavistas (Chavez supporters). And if he doesn’t, Venezuela
is doomed to suffer further corruption and decadence. The Israel-based author
has lectured at universities in 50 countries and penned a dozen books, among
them “Judeophobia” (2001) and “To Kill Without a Trace” (2009) about Iranian
terror in Latin America.

Voir: FALSE FLAGS--TEMPLATE FOR
TERROR, Chapter 28: 9-11 and the New
Internet Paradigm: The Necessity for
High-Level Manipulation and Control of the
Dissemination of Information

(...)Many of
these operatives spent much of their time putting out what could only be
described as downright “crazy” theories about 9-11 that redirected attention
away from sober, responsible research.

In other
instances, they specialized in cranking out often-reckless theories that were
quite easily refutable, therefore giving credence to the oft-heard claim from
the mainstream media that any and all other dissident 9-11 research was just as
silly and unreliable.

And in a
number of instances, there were several 9-11 “truthers” who, while pointing the
finger of blame at Israel, were (at the same time) engaging in other activity
that led many observers to believe that these individuals were “black
propaganda” operatives trying to bring discredit to those who believed Israel
was indeed responsible for 9-11.

Two such
individuals, Christopher Bollyn and Eric Hufschmid—whom many believe were
“ringers” inserted into the 9-11 truth movement from the beginning—ingratiated
themselves with American Free Press (having pretended to be enthusiastic about
my book Final Judgment) and, over a period of time, engaged in a concerted
effort to influence AFP’s coverage of 9-11—and not in a positive way.

Ultimately
AFP discovered that while Bollyn and Hufschmid supplied a lot of “good”
information, that data was mixed in with a variety of “bad” data, the
consequence of which was that many of the stories the two generated (working
hand-in-hand on a daily basis behind the scenes for well over a year) proved to
be of rather dubious value.

At one
juncture, Bollyn and Hufschmid tried to convince the editors of AFP that
outspoken 9-11 survivor, William Rodriguez—who had been honored by 9-11 truth
seekers all over the United States and around the world for his integrity—was
some sort of “Zionist agent.”

And despite
the fact that independently wealthy American philanthropist Jimmy Walter had
bankrolled speaking engagements by both Bollyn and Hufschmid, the dynamic duo
also spread the word that Walter—who spent millions of dollars of his own money
seeking to alert the public to 9-11 truth—was also a stooge for Israeli
interests.

For my own
part, I spent an entire week in Malaysia in the company of both Rodriguez and Walter
and I never saw any sign that they were working to advance Zionist interests in
any way, shape or form.

However,
considering the record of Bollyn and Hufschmid, I think it’s safe to say that
the same thing cannot be said about them.

Considering
all of this, more than a handful of 9-11 dissidents (including many who
believed Israel was behind 9-11) ultimately came to conclude Bollyn was
actually a disinformation agent using a perverse back-handed way of
discrediting AFP and those who believed the Mossad was responsible for 9-11.

Bollyn’s
critics correctly pointed out that Bollyn had a pattern of misquoting sources,
misinterpreting scientific information, and making assertions about certain
matters without any foundational authority.

The
consequence was that Bollyn’s disinformation gave ammunition to critics of
AFP’s contention that the Mossad was behind 9-11 and as such was
enthusiastically bandied about by Zionist propagandists seeking to undermine
AFP’s thesis even though the questionable material by Bollyn focused on
scientific data that had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific matter of
Mossad involvement in 9-11.

In the end,
after their deception was unmasked, Bollyn and Hufschmid launched a smear
campaign against AFP alleging that we were, too, were really “Zionist agents” trying
to cover up Mossad involvement in 9-11, an allegation preposterous on its face
to anyone familiar with AFP’s work. Bollyn even claimed that Mark Lane—the
anti-Zionist Jewish critic of Israel who pinpointed the CIA’s role in the JFK
assassination conspiracy—was a Zionist and a secret asset of the CIA!

Unfortunately—and
not unpredictably—a few naive folks actually believed these liars, especially
people new to the 9-11 truth movement who didn’t have access to the big
picture. However, when all was said and done, the romance between Bollyn and
Hufschmid came to a bitter end and the two began accusing one another of being
Zionist agents!

And the
strange outside possibility was that both of them could actually have been
right. After all, not all Zionist agents necessarily know the identities of the
others. That’s how complex the world of intelligence intrigue happens to be.

Hufschmid’s
own website devolved into a mish-mash of weird commentary (often referencing
sexual matters, especially human interaction with animals) and once even
included a nude photograph of Hufschmid, taken from the rear, ostensibly for
the purpose of explaining some “health” matter Hufschmid felt would interest
his readers.

That
Bollyn, an American, had spent time on an Israeli kibbutz and later married an
Israeli woman—who worked for Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence
agency—was a point many found telling. That his own sister was also married to
a Jew and had taken up residence in Israel was also considered somewhat
suspicious.

It’s always
been my suspicion (based on a variety of data too complicated to delve into
here) that Bollyn was a long-standing international free-lance intelligence
operative who, for at least a substantial part of his career, was working for
the Church of England, which—although many people don’t realize it—has always
been an arm of British intelligence, active in global intrigue. In fact, Bollyn
and his family have multiple “British” connections which also point toward that
conclusion.

And,
needless to say, the British Empire—which has long been under the control of
the Rothschild Dynasty—has always played a peculiar role in advancing Jewish
and Zionist interests, even going back to the days when the woman whom Bollyn
claims as an ancestor, Anne Boleyn, was a central player in a grand design that
disrupted the traditional role of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and set
the stage for the rise of Jewish financial power in Britain in years to come.
(And that is a story in and of itself—worthy of a book that has yet to be
written.)

But for
those who are interested, an English patriot and critic of the New World order
with an abiding interest in 9-11 truth—and who does believe Israel was a key
player in that tragedy—has put together a remarkably detailed website (complete
with a fascinating variety of links and other valuable information) which
delves into the bizarre story of Bollyn and his erstwhile friend Hufschmid. See
http://www.takeourworldback.com for more.

In any
event, all of this having been said, it’s quite clear that the circumstances surrounding
9-11 gave Israel—along with other power players on the world stage—a new
understanding of how the Internet worked and how its resources could be
utilized (for better or for worse) in manipulating global opinion.

And as a
consequence, people in high places began working to lay forth a plan to ensure
that, in the future, the Internet could be used for their own benefit and to
undercut those—such as the 9-11 dissidents and other truth-seekers who
questioned “official” stories about such matters as the JFK assassination and
the Oklahoma bombing and other matters—who stood in opposition to the New World
Order agenda.

As we shall
see, this carefully-crafted endeavor had even further consequences when the
plan was skillfully put into actual working order in the wake of the Sandy Hook
shooting in Newtown, Connecticut and the Boston Marathon bombing that followed
not long afterward.

The
Internet, as a consequence, was no longer simply a venue for truth seekers to “get
the word out” about high-level cover-ups. Instead, it became a vehicle used by
the high-level conspirators to not only confuse the work of the truth seekers
but also to combat them by discrediting them through some of the most
manipulative means possible.

It’s a
story that has never been told before, but it is a story that must be told, if
real truth seekers are going to be able to deal with the big challenges that
lie ahead, particularly when confronted with propaganda and disinformation
designed to frustrate their efforts to combat the very real forces of Evil that
lie behind the New World Order.

Let us then
move forward and examine this extraordinary conspiracy in a way that it has
never before been dissected. It’s a shocker . . .